JUDGMENT : MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J. 1. The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent employee before the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, contending that, in view of the remedy available under Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCS Rules’) the industrial dispute before the Labour Court is not maintainable. 2. The respondent while working as Attender in the petitioner Society was suspended from service in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 memo of charges culminated in Ext.P4 order dismissing the respondent from service. Though Rule 198(4) of the KCS Rules provides for an appeal against an order imposing penalty, she preferred an arbitration case before the Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCS Act’). Later, she withdrew the same and raised an industrial dispute. Since the Conciliation Officer failed to settle the dispute within 45 days, she filed an application before the Labour Court, Kollam under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute was numbered as ID No. 27/2022. 3. The petitioner Society filed Interlocutory Application No. 110/2022 in ID No. 27/2022 raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Industrial Dispute contending that industrial dispute without preferring a statutory appeal under Rule 198 (4) of the KCS Rules is not maintainable. 4. The Labour Court, by Ext.P5 order, held that filing an appeal under Rule 198(4) of the Rules is not a condition precedent for raising an industrial dispute and there is no provision either in the Industrial Disputes Act or the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules that prevents an aggrieved person from filing an industrial dispute without filing an appeal under Rule 198(4). 5. Ext.P5 order is impugned in the writ petition contending that Rule 198 (4) of the KCS Rules, which provides that an appeal shall lie against every order imposing a penalty to the competent appellate authority, is mandatory, and being a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, the respondent cannot bypass the statutory remedy. It is contended that, when the statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner. It is contended that, when the statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner. Accordingly, direction is sought to quash Ext.P5 and to declare that the industrial dispute is not maintainable before resorting to the remedy provided in Rule 198 (4) of the KCS Rules, as it is mandatory one. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein it is contended that service disputes of an employee of a Co-operative Society can be tried by the forum prescribed under the KCS Act or by machinery provided under the Industrial Disputes Act as both the Acts possess and enjoy concurrent jurisdiction to decide the dispute and it is for the aggrieved person to choose the forum. It is further stated that a writ petition challenging a preliminary order of the Labour Court shall not be entertained. It is contended that writ petition has been filed only to prolong the proceedings before the Labour Court. 7. Heard Sri. P.N. Mohanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Gopakumar R. Thaliyal, the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Can an application under Section 2A(2) of the ID Act be made to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal against an order of dismissal of an employee of a Co-operative Society without first exhausting the remedy of appeal under Rule 198(4) of the KCS Rules? This is the short question which is posed for consideration in this writ petition. 9. The question, when a service dispute arises between an employee of any Co-operative Society and his employer (Co-operative Society), whether such dispute is triable by the forum prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annamma K.A. v. Secretary, Cochin Cooperative Society Ltd. 2018 (2) SCC 729 : AIR 2018 SC 422 : ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 225 : 2018 (1) KHC 258 : 2018 (1) KLT 414 . 225 : 2018 (1) KHC 258 : 2018 (1) KLT 414 . The Court held that the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act both possess and enjoy the concurrent jurisdiction to decide any service dispute arising between the Co-operative Society’s employee and his/her employer and that it is the choice of the employee concerned to choose any one forum out of the two forums available to him/her under the two Acts to get his/her service dispute decided, subject to satisfying the test laid down under the Industrial Disputes Act that the employee concerned is a “workman” the dispute raised by him/her is an “industrial dispute” and the Co-operative Society (employer) is an “Industry” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. 10. The KCS Act and Rules provides for a hierarchy of remedies against an order imposing penalty on an employee. Rule 198 of the KCS Rules deals with disciplinary action. Rule 198(4) provides for appeal against an order imposing penalty. The competent appellate authority is also designated thereunder. Section 69(2)(d) of the KCS Act provides that any dispute, arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in Section 80(1), including their promotion and inter se seniority shall also be deemed to be disputes within the purview of Section 69(1) of the KCS Act. Section 70 of the KCS Act deals with award on disputes. Section 70A deals with constitution of the Co-operative Arbitration Courts. Thus against any penalty imposed on an employee of a Co-operative Society including dismissal for misconduct, a remedy lies before the Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 (2) of the KCS Act. Section 82 (1) (a) of the KCS Act provides for appeal to the Tribunal against an award of the Co-operative Arbitration Court made under Section 70(1). Section 82 of the KCS Act states that an order passed by the Tribunal, under sub-section (1), shall be final. 11. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annamma (supra), the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act both possess and enjoy the concurrent jurisdiction to decide any service dispute arising between the Co-operative Society’s employee and his/her employer. It is the discretion of the employee concerned to choose any one of the forums. 11. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annamma (supra), the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act both possess and enjoy the concurrent jurisdiction to decide any service dispute arising between the Co-operative Society’s employee and his/her employer. It is the discretion of the employee concerned to choose any one of the forums. If the employee opts for the forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, he/she must fulfill the criteria of “workman” and “industrial dispute” and “industry” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. 12. Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, allows a workman to directly approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of disputes arising from discharge, dismissal, retrenchment, or termination, provided an application has been made to the Conciliation Officer and the dispute remains unresolved for 45 days. The Labour Court or Tribunal then adjudicates the dispute as if it were referred by the Government. However, the application under Section 2A(2) is to be made within three years of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination. 13. The conditions for filing an application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are that the workman must first apply to the Conciliation Officer, wait 45 days for resolution, and then file the application before the Labour Court or Tribunal within three years of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination. Except as stated above, there is no provision under the Industrial Disputes Act that prohibits filing an industrial dispute without first preferring a statutory appeal under Rule 198(4) of the KCS Rules or exhausting other statutory remedies. 14. The respondent was dismissed from the service of the Society on 01.09.2021. Though she filed an Arbitration case before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, she withdrew the same and filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner has no case that the respondent will not come within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act or that the dispute is not industrial dispute under Section 2(k). Therefore, it was not necessary for the respondent to invoke the remedy under Rule 198(4) of the KCS Rules before approaching the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, it was not necessary for the respondent to invoke the remedy under Rule 198(4) of the KCS Rules before approaching the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. To prefer an application before the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not necessary to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy under the KCS Act or Rules. The writ petition is devoid of merit. There is no reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order. The industrial dispute before the Labour Court is maintainable and the Labour Court may proceed with the dispute, in accordance with law. Since the industrial dispute is of the year 2022, endeavour may be made to dispose of the same expeditiously. 15. The writ petition is disposed of.